The contribution of cannabis use to the increased psychosis risk among minority ethnic groups in Europe.

BACKGROUND: We examined whether cannabis use contributes to the increased risk of psychotic disorder for non-western minorities in Europe. METHODS: We used data from the EU-GEI study (collected at sites in Spain, Italy, France, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands) on 825 first-episode patients and 1026 controls. We estimated the odds ratio (OR) of psychotic disorder for several groups of migrants compared with the local reference population, without and with adjustment for measures of cannabis use. RESULTS: The OR of psychotic disorder for non-western minorities, adjusted for age, sex, and recruitment area, was 1.80 (95% CI 1.39-2.33). Further adjustment of this OR for frequency of cannabis use had a minimal effect: OR = 1.81 (95% CI 1.38-2.37). The same applied to adjustment for frequency of use of high-potency cannabis. Likewise, adjustments of ORs for most sub-groups of non-western countries had a minimal effect. There were two exceptions. For the Black Caribbean group in London, after adjustment for frequency of use of high-potency cannabis the OR decreased from 2.45 (95% CI 1.25-4.79) to 1.61 (95% CI 0.74-3.51). Similarly, the OR for Surinamese and Dutch Antillean individuals in Amsterdam decreased after adjustment for daily use: from 2.57 (95% CI 1.07-6.15) to 1.67 (95% CI 0.62-4.53). CONCLUSIONS: The contribution of cannabis use to the excess risk of psychotic disorder for non-western minorities was small. However, some evidence of an effect was found for people of Black Caribbean heritage in London and for those of Surinamese and Dutch Antillean heritage in Amsterdam.

Genetic and psychosocial stressors have independent effects on the level of subclinical psychosis: findings from the multinational EU-GEI study.

AIMS: Gene x environment (G×E) interactions, i.e. genetic modulation of the sensitivity to environmental factors and/or environmental control of the gene expression, have not been reliably established regarding aetiology of psychotic disorders. Moreover, recent studies have shown associations between the polygenic risk scores for schizophrenia (PRS-SZ) and some risk factors of psychotic disorders, challenging the traditional gene v. environment dichotomy. In the present article, we studied the role of GxE interaction between psychosocial stressors (childhood trauma, stressful life-events, self-reported discrimination experiences and low social capital) and the PRS-SZ on subclinical psychosis in a population-based sample. METHODS: Data were drawn from the EUropean network of national schizophrenia networks studying Gene-Environment Interactions (EU-GEI) study, in which subjects without psychotic disorders were included in six countries. The sample was restricted to European descendant subjects (n = 706). Subclinical dimensions of psychosis (positive, negative, and depressive) were measured by the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE) scale. Associations between the PRS-SZ and the psychosocial stressors were tested. For each dimension, the interactions between genes and environment were assessed using linear models and comparing explained variances of 'Genetic' models (solely fitted with PRS-SZ), 'Environmental' models (solely fitted with each environmental stressor), 'Independent' models (with PRS-SZ and each environmental factor), and 'Interaction' models (Independent models plus an interaction term between the PRS-SZ and each environmental factor). Likelihood ration tests (LRT) compared the fit of the different models. RESULTS: There were no genes-environment associations. PRS-SZ was associated with positive dimensions (ß = 0.092, R2 = 7.50%), and most psychosocial stressors were associated with all three subclinical psychotic dimensions (except social capital and positive dimension). Concerning the positive dimension, Independent models fitted better than Environmental and Genetic models. No significant GxE interaction was observed for any dimension. CONCLUSIONS: This study in subjects without psychotic disorders suggests that (i) the aetiological continuum hypothesis could concern particularly the positive dimension of subclinical psychosis, (ii) genetic and environmental factors have independent effects on the level of this positive dimension, (iii) and that interactions between genetic and individual environmental factors could not be identified in this sample.

Further evidence of a cumulative effect of social disadvantage on risk of psychosis.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence suggests that indicators of social disadvantage are associated with an increased risk of psychosis. However, only a few studies have specifically looked at cumulative effects and long-term associations. The aims of this study are: To compare the prevalence of specific indicators of social disadvantage at, and prior to, first contact with psychiatric services in patients suffering their first episode of psychosis and in a control sample. To explore long-term associations, cumulative effects, and direction of effects. METHOD: We collected information on social disadvantage from 332 patients and from 301 controls recruited from the local population in South London. Three indicators of social disadvantage in childhood and six indicators of social disadvantage in adulthood were analysed. RESULTS: Across all the domains considered, cases were more likely to report social disadvantage than were controls. Compared with controls, cases were approximately two times more likely to have had a parent die and approximately three times more likely to have experienced a long-term separation from one parent before the age of 17 years. Cases were also more likely than controls to report two or more indicators of adult social disadvantage, not only at first contact with psychiatric services [odds ratio (OR) 9.5], but also at onset of psychosis (OR 8.5), 1 year pre-onset (OR 4.5), and 5 years pre-onset (OR 2.9). CONCLUSIONS: Greater numbers of indicators of current and long-term exposure are associated with progressively greater odds of psychosis. There is some evidence that social disadvantage tends to cluster and accumulate.

Psychological processes underlying the association between childhood trauma and psychosis in daily life: an experience sampling study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence has accumulated that implicates childhood trauma in the aetiology of psychosis, but our understanding of the putative psychological processes and mechanisms through which childhood trauma impacts on individuals and contributes to the development of psychosis remains limited. We aimed to investigate whether stress sensitivity and threat anticipation underlie the association between childhood abuse and psychosis. METHOD: We used the Experience Sampling Method to measure stress, threat anticipation, negative affect, and psychotic experiences in 50 first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients, 44 At-Risk Mental State (ARMS) participants, and 52 controls. Childhood abuse was assessed using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. RESULTS: Associations of minor socio-environmental stress in daily life with negative affect and psychotic experiences were modified by sexual abuse and group (all p FWE < 0.05). While there was strong evidence that these associations were greater in FEP exposed to high levels of sexual abuse, and some evidence of greater associations in ARMS exposed to high levels of sexual abuse, controls exposed to high levels of sexual abuse were more resilient and reported less intense negative emotional reactions to socio-environmental stress. A similar pattern was evident for threat anticipation. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated sensitivity and lack of resilience to socio-environmental stress and enhanced threat anticipation in daily life may be important psychological processes underlying the association between childhood sexual abuse and psychosis.

Reasons for cannabis use in first-episode psychosis: does strength of endorsement change over 12 months?

BACKGROUND: Why patients with psychosis use cannabis remains debated. The self-medication hypothesis has received some support but other evidence points towards an alleviation of dysphoria model. This study investigated the reasons for cannabis use in first-episode psychosis (FEP) and whether strength in their endorsement changed over time. METHODS: FEP inpatients and outpatients at the South London and Maudsley, Oxleas and Sussex NHS Trusts UK, who used cannabis, rated their motives at baseline (n=69), 3 months (n=29) and 12 months (n=36). A random intercept model was used to test the change in strength of endorsement over the 12 months. Paired-sample t-tests assessed the differences in mean scores between the five subscales on the Reasons for Use Scale (enhancement, social motive, coping with unpleasant affect, conformity and acceptance and relief of positive symptoms and side effects), at each time-point. RESULTS: Time had a significant effect on scores when controlling for reason; average scores on each subscale were higher at baseline than at 3 months and 12 months. At each time-point, patients endorsed 'enhancement' followed by 'coping with unpleasant affect' and 'social motive' more highly for their cannabis use than any other reason. 'Conformity and acceptance' followed closely. 'Relief of positive symptoms and side effects' was the least endorsed motive. CONCLUSIONS: Patients endorsed their reasons for use at 3 months and 12 months less strongly than at baseline. Little support for the self-medication or alleviation of dysphoria models was found. Rather, patients rated 'enhancement' most highly for their cannabis use.

Social networks, support and early psychosis: a systematic review.

Background. There is strong evidence that those with a long-standing psychotic disorder have fewer social contacts and less social support than comparison groups. There is less research on the extent of social contacts and support prior to or at the onset of psychosis. In the light of recent evidence implicating a range of social experiences and contexts at the onset of psychosis, it is relevant to establish whether social networks and support diminished before or at the time of onset and whether the absence of such supports might contribute to risk, either directly or indirectly. We, therefore, conducted a systematic review of this literature to establish what is currently known about the relationship between social networks, support and early psychosis. Methods. We identified all studies investigating social networks and support in first episode psychosis samples and in general population samples with measures of psychotic experiences or schizotype by conducting systematic searches of electronic databases using pre-defined search terms and criteria. Findings were synthesized using non-quantitative approaches. Results. Thirty-eight papers were identified that met inclusion criteria. There was marked methodological heterogeneity, which limits the capacity to draw direct comparisons. Nonetheless, the existing literature suggests social networks (particularly close friends) and support diminished both among first episode samples and among non-clinical samples reporting psychotic experiences or with schizotype traits, compared with varying comparison groups. These differences may be more marked for men and for those from minority ethnic populations. Conclusions. Tentatively, reduced social networks and support appear to pre-date onset of psychotic disorder. However, the substantial methodological heterogeneity among the existing studies makes comparisons difficult and suggests a need for more robust and comparable studies on networks, support and early psychosis.